The moral aspect of the right to die legislation

The Morality of Right to Die Legislation

Like the right to life, the right to death is a crucial issue that is inextricably linked to birth. In that regard, the option to end one’s life is crucial to the quality of human life. Doctors must keep a patient alive without taking into account how the patient is feeling. Ball (1) argues that an individual’s decision to die is their own. When a person’s quality of life has declined and there is little chance for rehabilitation, they may commit euthanasia by killing themselves with medications. Currently, the public has little faith that contemporary medicine can solve all the health problems and they believe that the right to die is normal. The mind of people is occupied by how much they can save themselves when they have health conditions (Levin 1). In connection to that, people believe that it is ethical and moral to decide to kill themselves when they have been treated but no changes are observed and the only thing remaining is death.

Euthanasia

Euthanasia refers to good death and it originates from two Greek words eu and thantos meaning good death respectively. The right to die refers to a passive or active act of choosing to die when injury or disease prevents a person from enjoying the life while in good health. Active euthanasia refers to the act of assisting a person to die through injecting them or exposing them to drugs that would kill them peacefully. By contrast, passive euthanasia refers to the withdrawal of medication that would eventually lead to the death of a patient (Gaetz 1). It may comprise removal of the tube used to feed the patient, disconnecting the respirator, or switching off of dialysis machine. The difference between the two is that in active euthanasia someone is required to do something like inject drugs or overdose of drugs, while in passive euthanasia someone does not perform a lifesaving action and leaves the patient to die (Levin 1). For instance, a passive euthanasia is when a person experiences a heart attack and the healthcare professionals do not resuscitate them.

Voluntary and Involuntary Euthanasia

Regardless of the type, euthanasia can either be voluntary or involuntary. In a voluntary euthanasia, a patient tells the nurse they want to die after they know their health conditions. Consequently, involuntary euthanasia refers to when doctors decide to kill a patient without their knowledge or consent (Gaetz 1). Often, involuntary euthanasia occurs when the patient is not able to speak and are unconscious. In this state, the patient is not able to decide on their own. Even though passive involuntary euthanasia and active voluntary euthanasia have the same outcome, which is death, they have huge differences (Ball 1). In an active voluntary euthanasia, the sick decides that their health condition is not bearable and they can morally decide to kill themselves peacefully. By contrast, in passive involuntary euthanasia, other people such as spouse or siblings decide on behalf of the patient because the patient is not worth living and they are killed.

Doctor-Assisted Suicide

The doctor-assisted suicide is an example of euthanasia. The doctors are allowed to follow the certified procedures for ending a patients’ life. For instance, the life to die act of 1990 permits the doctor to use a specific procedure after he or she certifies that the condition of the patient is unbearable and death is the remaining option (Levin 1). The doctor prescribes chemicals and the procedures to kill the patient but does not administer the drugs to the sick because the law directs that the patient should ingest or inject themselves with the chemicals. Most physicians consider that helping patients to end their lives is against what they believe, while other doctors recognize that it is provided in their profession to assist patients to end their life morally (Ball 1). On the same note, the government supports that physicians should assist patients to kill themselves provided they follow the law. While the issue of physician-assisted deaths has been controversial, it has been legalized in different states, for instance, Montana, Oregon, and Washington (Gaetz 1). The law is strict and states that the doctors are only allowed to prescribe and not to administer. In connection to that, Dr. Kevorkian was prosecuted for helping a patient who was not able to consume the drugs on his own. The court charged him with second-degree murder worth twenty-five years sentence (Ball 1).

Conclusion

Overall, the morality of right to die legislation has been questioned, but most people accept that this procedure is moral because a patient decides to end their lives themselves. The right to die act has been implemented in three states that is Montana, Oregon, and Washington. The law states that physicians are not allowed to participate in the killing directly, rather they prescribe the amounts and types of drugs and the procedure that the patient should use. In some instances, when the patient is unconscious and cannot decide while their health is unbearable, other people may decide to kill them.

Works Cited

Ball, Howard. “Physician-Assisted Death In America: Ethics, Law, And Policy Conflicts.” Cato Unbound. N.p., 2012. Web. 29 Nov. 2017.

Gaetz, Susan M. “Current Laws Permitting Assisted Suicide Are Morally Indefensible.” Vox. N.p., 2017. Web. 29 Nov. 2017.

Levin, Martin. “Physician-Assisted Suicide - Moral, Legal & Ethical Issues.” Levin Papantonio - Personal Injury Lawyers. N.p., 2017. Web. 29 Nov. 2017.